Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 25 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Murder of Meredith Kercher was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Trial of Knox and Sollecito was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Meredith Kercher page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Amanda Knox page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Murder of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito or Rudy Guede. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Murder of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito or Rudy Guede at the Reference desk.

Bloody Footprints in the hall, Filomena's room, and Amanda's room

The following quote from Judge Massei’s report (motivation document) page 256-257, indicates there were no bloody foot prints compatible with Amanda or Raffaele and there were no bloody footprints at all except for one print on the bath mat....

NOTE: To understand this paragraph one must consider that the so-called bloody footprints were found with Luminol in the hallway, Amanda's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Also if a sample in question did not contain a genetic profile then it's not possible blood was present the area sampled. Blood contains a genetic profile, so it is not possible the area sampled was blood. Does anyone dispute that?

From Massei report page 256-257: “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine, and this test, gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009).”Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are a) We don't know for sure whose footprints were in the hall--the police did not take reference samples and all we really know is that Amanda cannot be excluded as a donor; b) luminol is only a preliminary test for blood, and when the confirmatory test was done it was negative; c) there was no DNA in the prints. To summarize: no blood or DNA in the prints and we don't know for certain whose prints they were. Note too that 14 luminol hits were found in Raffaele's apartment. Those weren't blood either.PietroLegno (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Luminol is a presumptive test which is just slightly different in that it says the substance found could be one of MANY substances one of which is blood, another of which is bleach. But I agree with you on this.Michellesings (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. No, TMB will give a false positive but not a false negative. If Massei is attributing something, that he's quoting, who is he attributing this to and on what page is he attributing it on? The court experts DIDN'T say there was blood. There's no "court experts". There are Prosecution experts and then there are Defense expertsMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. Remember DNA is not the same as blood.There's DNA in an eyelash.Michelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. That absolutely doesn't make sense and is simply not the truth no matter how much you want to believe thisMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)It doesn't matter (who this was said by) if this was said by the defense, it was still Massei. Massei is saying unequivoqually that the Polizia Scientifica said one thing in court but there reports said another thing entirely. This is Pergury. Patrizia Stefanoni essentially lied. She perjured herself. Right now it's looking more and more like the Massei Report is the roadmap to a railroad job.Michellesings (talk)

Rather than analyzing the data here, it might be preferable to expand or start new articles on the many blood tests in use ( seems like a beginning) so that readers who are interested can do their own OR. For example, some sources list the DMB test as only 1/5 as sensitive as the luminol () - however, bear in mind that the development of colorimetric signals is an art form and there are many protocols meant to get a little more oomph out of the procedure (which would make nice meat for an article about the test). I think someone would have to have the product number of the kit they used to even have a prayer of figuring out such details for himself. (And the experts cited by the media? 50-50 chance they'll get it right...) Wnt (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we might be getting wrong-footed in several places here. First, I want to make sure that no one suggests that it is reliable to interpret luminol findings on the basis of color. There was an old wives tale to that effect but it has never been accepted in modern practice. Here is a useful source:

"If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed. The reason for this that there are a number of substances that can produce false-positive observations including bleach, plant peroxidases, chemical oxidants such as potassium permanganate, copper, brass, lead, zinc, bronze, iron, or cobalt."

"DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications" Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas Liotti, and Jamel Oeser-Sweat John Wiley and Sons, 2005, p. 36

The point is that luminol is always to be considered only a preliminary test and a luminol "hit" is NEVER to be accepted as an indication of the presence of blood absent a positive finding from a confirmatory test.

As for the DNA/luminol issue, it is important to distinguish, analyze, and not lump everything in together. The footprints in the hallway (which have not been shown to belong to Amanda) did not test positive for blood and contained no DNA--hence the defense suggestion that the idea that these were Amanda's "bloody footprints" is wildly illogical and unsupported by evidence. Just a few of the luminol stains found elsewhere yielded DNA profiles but these were strictly non-probative. PietroLegno (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the jury in this particular case was wrong to believe that the traces were made in blood, or is this just OR? --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The negative results of the blood tests need to be included in the article. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about whether the jury was right or wrong to believe that. Does that sound reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source needs to be found for the information first, at the very least. --FormerIP (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey covers this. I will get the citation. In the mean time, I have taken the liberty of summarizing the points made in the Knox appeal. This is surely enough to demonstrate that the point is vigorously disputed:

~---There is no evidence that any of these tracks were made in blood and there is nothing to link them to the murder.

---Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda.

---Only 3 of 9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith. Meredith’s DNA profile was NOT found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's).

--Initially, Stefanoni claimed that no additional testing was done. The information she was compelled to release in July 2009 revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were all tested using using TMB and the tests were negative for all tracks.

---Massei’s speculation that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small is silly and wrong as a matter of science. Any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not a false negative. This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings.

--Massei appears to accept the claim the luminol stain was blood based upon a subjective assessment of the color of the reaction. This is completely unscientific and flies in the face of established protocols everywhere. The bottom line is there was no proof that the footprints were made with Meredith’s blood. PietroLegno (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The luminol evidence was central to Knox/Sollecito’s conviction. I think letting the reader know why and how this conclusion was reached is important to understanding Knox’s conviction.

Knox’s DNA recovered from the lumiol traces could only come from pressure or sweat, because she had no cuts on her feet. But whereever she walked with bare feet she would leave DNA via that same process, and she walked around her own home barefoot plenty. Recovering Knox’s DNA from any given patch of floor would simply be incidental. That would also have to be true of Meredith’s DNA found on the floor. Well, perhaps that is OR.

Still, I think one of the problems with explaining the luminol traces is being overly brief. It’s easy to create the false impression that the traces are easily identified as foot prints, and that the placement of the traces leads to a logical connection with the crime. Reading the Massei report shows that neither of these statements are true. We should be willing to devote enough text to explain the luminol traces in some depth - exactly what was found with luminol, how the court came to decide the traces were connected to the crime, the strengths and weaknesses of the luminol traces as evidence. Moodstream (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the luminol footprints prove is that there was no cleanup of the crime scene. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I"m confused. I can't find the information you mentioned in your post about: 1) the test only being 50% reliable, 2) the test results "not easy to interpret" 3) something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement 4) Massei concluding that the traces probably are blood. If you don't mind would you please copy and paste the paragraphs here from where you found this information, along with the page number where I can find the information. The following is your comment from April 2.

"This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--Truth Mom (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sense of proportion is being lost here. Should an encyclopedia article really be delving into such specifics? Is the article going to re-try the evidence and come up with its own judgment on what it all meant and how it should be interpreted? I think that if the article were to be truly neutral it would necessarily be frustrating to advocates on all sides. The goal here should be to produce something encyclopedic that frustrates everyone at least a little. I'm pretty new/ infrequent on Misplaced Pages but it seems clear to me that NPOV means the article can say that "this is what they were convicted for, this is what the court said, this is what they're saying in their appeals" but not "the traces found with luminol clearly were not made in blood." The latter is OR. And impossible for anyone who's not a forensic expert to know, by the way. And even forensic experts disagree. It's tempting to play amateur CSI here but that's not what an encyclopedia article is for. What is knowable--and appropriate for an encyclopedia to report--is that a conviction was made, an appeal is being made, the court said X, the defense said Y, etc. Grebe39 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Grebe39, I see that you are new to wikipedia, welcome. If you don't mind would you please delete your comment or revise it because nobody suggested an edit to the article that reads "the traces found with Luminol clearly were not made in blood." Also I suggest that you start a new topic to discuss what wikipedia should be, which BTW is an excellent topic to discuss. I prefer to keep this topic focused on the bloody footprints in the hall, Filomena's bedroom, and Amanda's bedroom. My comment will be deleted after this issue is resolved. We have to do things a special way here and the Admins do that stuff. Thank you kindly.--Truth Mom (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm just overlooking it, but is there a specific suggestion under consideration in this thread for an edit or change to the article? I see a discussion of the so called 'bloody footprints' but I dont see what specific changes are being proposed. I do think the subject is important as the presence of 'bloody footprints belonging to Amanda' has long been one of those inaccurate red-herrings that appear damning but have no real basis. The bare footprints in the hall that fluoresced with luminol were later determined (Stefanoni's notes) to have been tested with TMB and did not react. i.e not blood, The presence of DNA, if it existed, meant nothing more than that bare feet made the prints. So what change is being proposed. We need something concrete to work toward consensus on.Tjholme (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP would you please answer my question.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tjholme, we have a statement in the article that says “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” This would lead one to believe that the footprints were of blood. As we can see from Massei’s report this is not true. I think we should include the entire paragraph from Massei’s report (posted above) verbatim to clear up this misleading statement.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP you said " defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable."

Is this what you was referring to? I found this on page 258 of Massei's report: "She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive,”

Also I found this on page 256 of Massei's report: "...During the hearing, Dr. Sarah Gino also explained that from reading the SAL schedules, information emerged which indicated the personnel who performed the analyses, the file number, the bio code, and the identification numbers of the items being analysed. She added, however, that "there is missing information or rather, information which is not easy to interpret".

Is this the information you found in Massei’s report that you mentioned in your comment? If not where did you find the information? --Truth Mom (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please help me make this edit because I don't know how? --Truth Mom (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently locked, so I think only an Admin could make an edit. What precisely do you want to add? I would write it clearly here (meaning, the actual proposed text, with citations) and then ask others to add it.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

well, I don’t know what is possible to include in the article. The article currently contains the following statement, “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” The statement indicates Amanda and Raffaele’s bloody footprints were found at the crime scene. This is very incriminating. From Massei's report we know that test were performed on the so called bloody footprints and were negative for blood and when the authorities were ask in court if the test for blood had been performed they gave false testimony". If we paraphrase what the Massei report says, then we are doing original research, so I guess we must include the entire paragraph from Massei's report following the statement that is currently in the article. How is it possible to approach reality under these conditions? Apparently The media didn’t think the authorities lying in court is significant because they did not report it. Also the blood test on the footprints didn’t get much attention if any, but Amanda’s panties got plenty of coverage. I just doesn't make sense. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Truth Mom, I agree! Something needs to be done about this!Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following edit " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.:373 . The authorities testified in court that test for blood had not been performed and presented police crime lab reports that did not mention the test. Later the defense testified that the authorities crime lab records revealed the test in question had been performed by the crime lab, and the results were negative for the presents of blood for all traces, however the judge assumed the blue blurs revealed with Luminol was from Amanda's bloody feet regardless of the scientific test results --Truth Mom (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events? --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

yes--Truth Mom (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Please would you be so kind as to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FormeIP the information you ask for is already posted in this topic / thread, and you said the court accepted the substance is blood (above)although the test indicated it wasn't so you know where this info is located in massei's report, am I correct? --Truth Mom (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article reads, " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.:373 " I think the test for blood for the footprints should be included in the article although Massei's report is considered a primary source. I would like Mr. Wales opinion about this because it is a significant issue " Turningpointe (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The authorities giving false testimony in court is significant and should be in the article along with the test for blood that gave negative results for all footprints that could have contained blood. It is not proper for this information not to be included in the article. Turningpointe (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It says the authorities said the prints were compatible with Knox's feet. We should follow that letting the reader know that her prints were the only ones they compared them to. They didn't take prints of the other roommates feet. Issymo (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ReWrite - Support for Knox and Sollecito

Support sites for Knox and Sollecito with hundreds of members developed over the course of their arrest and trials and have called for their release due to wrongful conviction. Some sites being: Friends of Amanda Knox, Injustice in Perugia , Raffaele Sollecito , Science Spheres , The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito , View from Wilmington and Ingiustizia a Perugia

Notable supporters of Knox and Sollecito's innocence include: 25yr veteran FBI agent Steve Moore, Author Douglas Preston , P.I. Paul Ciolino, Peter Van Sant, FBI Profiler John E. Douglas, Donald Trump , John Q Kelley , Timothy Egan , Judy Bachrach, Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry , Mark Waterbury Ph.D., Author Candace Dempsey, Lawyer Anne Bremner and Judge Michael Heavy.

9 US Specialists in DNA Forensics Open Letter: On 19 November 2009 Elizabeth A. Johnson Ph.D. and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. as well as 7 other US DNA experts signed an open letter outlining their concerns with the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence central in the case. The letter raised the possibility that the DNA evidence involved was introduced through contamination and concluded that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred".

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: 4 December 2009, the day the guilty verdict on Knox and Sollecito was announced, WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty." Issymo (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very good you have put a lot of great information in it. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very well written. BruceFisher (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks very fair to me. Any interested reader would find the links useful when making an assessment on the case. I believe that the DNA Forensics Open Letter was picked up by New Scientist Magazine and written about there. Surely a reliable source? NigelPScott (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Issymo. The first two paragraphs of your proposal contain no reliable sources. The second two look okay, but I am not sure they add much to what is already in the article. The link between the open letter and Friends of Amanda should, of course, be mentioned. --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the link between the open letter and friends of amanda? Propose text please.LedRush (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that asserting that various websites are "The most notable," requires a source, as does listing "Notable supporters," especially when those "Notable supporters" lack Misplaced Pages biographies. In addition, I am strongly concerned about link-farming. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us go back to the start of this. Is there consensus that there should be a section entitled "Support for Knox and Sollecito"? If there is, then the websites and individuals listed are the most notable in terms of knowledge, information and their analysis of the case and its shortcomings. There are other blogs that have much to say on the subject of innocence, like the oddly named, Church Discipline http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ where the writer travels on a journey from believing in guilt, to believing in innocence tainted by unhelpful behaviour, to believing in outright innocence with belief that a manipulated and biased media was part of a railroad process. Be that as it may, the items suggested would probably be supported as being helpful by most knowledgeable supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Have a look at them and see. These sites illuminate the 'innocence' side of the controversy and we are agreed that there is a controversy aren't we? I would suggest that any editor is free to suggest other innocence sites (e.g. Church Discipline) if he or she believes that there are significant omissions. Of course, if there is a consensus that there should be no section entitled, "Support for Knox and Sollecito", we can discuss something else instead. NigelPScott (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that these websites and individuals are the most notable. Could you cite reliable secondary sources for your assertion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I would love to hear your alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites and individuals. Pray, do tell, then we can all consider the options and reach a consensus. NigelPScott (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point Nigel. We need reliable sources that discuss or illustrate the notability of these websites and individuals, otherwise these is no material on which to base a discussion and reach a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unable to cite reliable sources for my alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites, so I don't think it's relevant for me to disclose my list. Could you cite your reliable sources? Alternatively, we could exclude a list of people/websites. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite is clearly being more confrontational and obstructionist than necessary, but he's also making a good point. Just because we all know that these guys are the ones that are most notable doesn't mean that it's sufficiently verifiable for our readers. I think there is a simple fix. Just cite news articles which quote these people and organizations (preferable, major media sites) and change "most notable" to "some notable supporters include".LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story done by ABC News that discusses Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia. BruceFisher (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with FOA being mentioned in the article, and I think we have already agreed to do that. Injustice in Perugia, though, isn't really discussed in this article, it is just mentioned as hosting a video. We really need sources that show these websites to be noteworthy, not just confirming their existence. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about Injustice in Perugia hosting a video. The article discusses the active support provided by Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The article is discussing Injustice in Perugia as a group, not simply discussing the group's website. BruceFisher (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of these sources recently added don't instill a lot of confidence in me. I feel like a mention in Time or ABC news is prima facie evidence that they can be listed in the article. However, while the West Seattle Herald may be a RS, I don't think it carries the same weight. I think I would need more from such a reference (like an explicit statement that those people/groups are notable, or repeated mentions).LedRush (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pressed for time but here are a few others discussing Injustice in Perugia. National Review , France 24 International News . The independent made the mistake of stating that Injustice in Perugia was created by Steve Moore but they mentioned it non the less. . The Injustice in Perugia website was also seen in the recent Lifetime documentary highlighting Steve Moore's analysis. It seems like the question is whether or not Injustice in Perugia is a notable support group for Amanda Knox. I think a few links would be sufficient to show notable support. With the Injustice in Perugia websites along with the cause page set up in support of Amanda and Raffaele, there are currently thousands of active supporters. We are here today taking another look at this article because members of Injustice in Perugia brought attention to current issues. I think that alone would show that Injustice in Perugia is significant. BruceFisher (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These sources are being misrepresented. The National Review article simply name-drops your own book of the same name. France24 devotes once sentence to the group, followed by commentary on something one person says there. The Independent name-drops the site (incorrectly as you say) as it discusses Moore's opinion, there is no commentary or analysis of the site itself. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to step back let others voice their opinions. I am certainly not here to promote my website. Keep in mind that the discussion is about the group and not the website. I am only suggesting that Injustice in Perugia is clearly a significant support group for Amanda Knox. It honestly seems a little silly to me that anyone would suggest otherwise. BruceFisher (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added sources for the 'Notable Supporters'. I've also changed the wording in regards to the support sites to simply say - Some site being: - I've added RS for FOA and IIP. Since the wording has changed to say sites being, instead of notable sites, do the others sites even need secondary sources since it is self evident that they exist by clicking on their link? Wouldn't they be examples of common knowledge plain sight observations? Or could we use FOA as a source since all those support sites are listed there? Issymo (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just listing sites without any notability is a violation of WP:LINKFARM - what are the conditions for inclusion on your list? FoA is not a reliable source for the notability of sites. Many of your links to "notable" supporters in no way confirms the notability of said supporters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the support sites being listed without secondary sources are not acceptable they can be removed. I don't know the rules on this and would appreciate others input on this please. FOA and IIP have sources and should be kept. I disagree that the sources given for the notable supporters are unacceptable. I see nothing wrong with them at all and believe they are perfectly acceptable. Issymo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it this way - what makes each and every one of your "notable supporters" notable? If it's just that they are supporters, is that notable? You've included such "notables" as a retired engineer and a local judge. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They are notable enough to mention here because they are notable enough to be mentioned in the RSs listed (for the ones listed in RSs, of course...the others should be deleted, per my comments above).

Are you suggesting that I expand the section to include individual quotes and descripions of how they are involved in the case? I can certainly do that. I had thought before that it would make the section too long. I don't understand why you question a Forensic Engineer and Judge's notability when the Telegraph and King 5 news found them worthy of space.Issymo (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to dispute the citations, let's discuss them here, rather than tagging the text, making discussion nearly impossible. Especially when the tags don't seem to relate to the things they are tagging. It seems like Hipocrite thinks the citations are doing something than what I see them as doing. I see the citations regarding the groups merely supporting the statement about the goal of such groups. Each clearly does this. However, the sources, if they come from RSs, also provide prima facie evidence that the group is notable...the sources don't say the group is notable. They indicate that the group is notable by covering their actions and statements. Of course, as I have said above, if the West SEattle Herald covers the group or individual, it does not carry the weight as Time, ABC, CBS or the Telegraph.LedRush (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can the self-published site be enough to state what the opinion of that group is? I think so. So most of those tags should be removed as well.LedRush (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If sources merely mention the existance of a person in passing, or are from small-circulation local papers and are the only instance where someone was mentioned, they do not evidence strong notability - it appears to be using wikipedia as promotion for non-notable people and non-notable blogs. The "west seattle herald" has a circulation of about 10k - this is not a newspaper where one article about some engineer makes them notable enough to include in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that my attempts to fix the text are reverted on site, I oppose any inclusion of this unencylopedic linkfarm. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not my proposal - my proposal is no change at all. That was my compromise. Please do not speak for me. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow).LedRush (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed text attributed to me that I did not write. As above - if my changes to the proposal are reverted sight-unseen, I oppose any change to the article at all. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is how to properly describe the support. Linking to a site, IS citing it. That isn't to say that including the sites is the best way to describe support.Perk10 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Obvious and transparent problems with the proposal

In addition to the tags that were somehow allowed to stick, there are more obvious and transparent problems with the proposal. This is not a full recounting of the many flaws, but all of these must be corrected.

1. The first sentence is ungrammatical. "Their" refers to the sites? K&S? Someone else?
2. The first sentence is POV - it places "due to wrongful conviction" in Misplaced Pages's mouth. It needs to be clear that "due to wrongful conviction" is the opinion of the sites, not a fact.
3. The following "notable" supporters are not notable - Steve Moore, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Ron Hendry, Mark Waterbury, Anne Bremner, Judge Michael Heavy. There are two points to being a "notable supporter" - being a supporter, which is verifiable from the citations, and being "notable." Just because their support is noted, they are not, themselves, notable. If the word "notable" were removed, this might be acceptable, but then it's just a linkfarm. Well, if you look up "Steve Moore" and "Meredith Kercher" on Google, you might change your mind on the noteworthiness point". In this case, even the smallest of things have ended up quite notable, indeed. For example, I think it is even quite notable that Peter Quennel, who's never even been in the media, is involved. Look at what he's done in his involvement. Same with Peggy Ganong. There should definitely be sections on them in this article as well. And Steve Moore's credibility has helped open up a huge can of worms as far as The Murder of Meredith Kercher. Mainly, what he brought to the table was that two of people convicted were part of a horrid injustice. Being that two innocent people who were wrongfully imprisoned are about to get out of jail, and that these people had part, are quite notable. I think he's had a huge impact in this, along with several others that you are calling un notable.Michelle Moore 07:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
4. The third parargraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persusuasive argument - bullet pointed.
5. The third paragraph states that the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence was "central in the case." This is an opinion - whose opinion is it?
6. The fourth paragraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persuasive argument - bullet pointed.

These must be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "Their" release refers to AK and RS. Whose release is it - AK an RS's release. I am not opposed to making the sentence clearer in some way. 2. Yes they have POVs, they are afterall support sites. In the context of saying there are support sites this should be acceptable. 3. "notable", I disagree that they are not notable. They clearly are. They have also made notable contributions to 'supporting' AK and RS as this section suggests. 4. The DNA experts say the bra clasp and knife are important evidence used against AK and RS. This is also well known and other sources can be found for that line if required. 5. I don't see anything wrong with paragraph's 3 and 4. Other editors should say how to make them more encyclopedic if needed.Issymo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm glad you're not opposed to clarifying the sentence. Since I'm not allowed to do so, please fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2. it is not clear that the POV that the opinion about the conviction is merely the opinion of the activists, as opposed to a fact expressed by wikipedia. Please fix that.
3. If they were notable, there would be articles about them regarding things other than this case.
4. If it is the opinion of the experts that the claspe and knife were important to the case, this should be made clear. As you wrote it, it is stated as fact that the claspe and knife were central.
5. I am not permitted to rewrite your paragraphs, so I'll have to just oppose their inclusion in full.

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly "their" refers Knox and Sollecito but that is an easy thing to fix if designations are better than a pronoun. The wording that includes "wrongful conviction" is reflexive to the sites' and supporters' opinion, though that intention and meaning of the phrase could be made more explicit. The word "notable" can be likened to the word "main", or "key". The bra clasp was the only physical evidence that put Sollecito at the scene of the crime, so it was central in that respect, indeed. The fourth paragraph needs to be reworked for grammatical purposes, but it seems to aim at merely quoting the senator.Perk10 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I'm not sure how the British use the word 'notable', but Websters says it means

'worthy of note or notice'. In the context of this case, The Kercher murder case the the subsequent trial of Knox/Sollecito, all those people indicated above qualify as 'notable' under a conservative definition of the word. Beyond the advocacy websites and self published books, each (or most) has been vetted by major news media and interviewed and/or quoted as an expert in their field as related to the case. These media companies include such respected names as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY Times, Seattle PI, etc etc. They've also spoken live at the invitation of Seattle University, Media Dept. Their 'notability' is self-evident. What would make them 'notable' by your definition? Everyone cant be Lady Gaga.. Tjholme (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable can mean significant. So that the notable supporters can mean the main ones, notable amongst the supporters. Or it can mean persons who are in themselves notable, in general. Obviously, in terms of the latter meaning, Senator Cantwell is notable, experts could be called notable, even as Jimbo Wales suggested, a celebrity section noting Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, even if it is clear that celebrities are individuals who are well known who were willing to stand up publicly to show support.Perk10 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I think Perk10 is right here, at least how I have always seen it anyway. There are two sorts of people/groups here. The first are notable people who have come out in support. This would be people independently notable, not by being connected with the support groups or the family - i.e. celebrities, government officials etc. Usually we would include a few of the most significant supporters of this type supported by independent reliable sources. The other type of person/group are those that are identified as a significant and notable part of their support. This is a bit more difficult, because defining at what point and individual or group becomes significant is a tough editorial decision (and we must be careful to avoid OR). But the oft accepted practice is to find a independent reliable source that identifies the person/group as a supporter and specifically notes them as significant to the cause. This last part is the step that most usually gets forgotten. As a final note; by independent I mean a non-partisan, mainstream source. A source from one support group, for example, saying another is significant/notable etc. is not very solid :) --Errant 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that there are also some groups that support the convictions. This section should probably include mention of those groups. Maybe rename the section Support, and include a subsection for the various sides. It would be a pretty glaring absence not to mention both sides here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. There is some discussion above to do exactly that, specifically with regards to Kercher's father's statement, which don't seem to belong in the media section.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with equal time for the opposition groups but, with due respect, I’m not sure that they are notable for anything beyond spewing grief and misinformation, and I can’t think of even one that’s notable on an individual level.. Peggy Ganong, out of West Seattle, DID get a couple local media interviews I guess.. It would, however, be beyond charitable to call her notable.. and Peter Quennell is kind of an enigmatic finance man.. They don’t seem to do awareness raising events or public protests.. For the most part just ad hom attack from behind the mask of internet anonymity. There just isn’t the same sort of support from reputable public personalities stepping up and putting their own good names on the line to fight a perceived injustice.. But some sort of the mention of the 'Guilters' does seem fair.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we use the same criteria for both groups: if they are commented upon in large media outlets (CNN, ABC, Telegraph, Time, etc.), that is prima facie evidence that they are notable. If they are mentioned in less notable RSs (West Seattle Herald), we might need more explicit statements of notability, or evidence of continued references to the group. And we don't give equal weight to both groups...we merely reflect what the RSs have determined (through the process I describe above) are notable. If that's 20 that support Kercher and 2 for Knox and Sollecito, then so be it.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sourced description of trial

I reverted this. It is nearly all primary-sourced, and it does not add substantial value to the article. If there are important points there that need summarizing, please explain which are important on talk, with references to reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I restore my improvements to the opening sentence of that section? Cos you also just restored the "supposed date" stuff which is classic WP:WEASEL. Just checking this is kosher before I do it. --Errant 09:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no concerns with your changes. Hipocrite (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per policy WP:PRIMARY, descriptive text can be backed by a primary source; secondary sources are needed to support conclusions not stated in the primary sources (read WP:RS). Also, sources are not needed for non-controversial text, at all. Plus, the large-scale deletion of major sections of text, of deleting 3408 bytes, requires consensus of interested editors, not a unilateral deletion as was done by User:Hipocrite in this edit (09:30, 20 April 2011). Unless there are any new policies created to allow one person to delete massive amounts of sourced text, I will restored the deleted material to the article. -Wikid77 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies I relied on in removing the text were WP:BURDEN, WP:CON and WP:BRD. Please describe what from your primary sources is important, using reliable secondary sources. The section cannot be based almost entirely on primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is my understanding that these edits are fine under WP:PRIMARY as they are merely descriptive text. If that isn't the case, the language should be changed to descriptive text, not tagged. Furthermore, why is this the only information being tagged? There are at least a dozen references to the Massei rerport in this article...is it Hipocrite's position that each one needs to be tagged? Clearly, WP policy is to allow primary sources in some circumstances. I just don't see the value in these tags.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what tags you are referring to, since this section is not referring to a tag addition. If you are referring to this tag addition, it is because the information about the laptop may or may not be notable - if it were notable information, it would have been included in a reliable secondary source. The "Massei" report is massive - and a problem that needs to be avoided is the possibility of editors misusing the report, selectively reporting and documenting facts that they feel are important - in effect, analyzing the document by choosing what to include and what not to include. The typical way that large primary documents are used is not to find things that are in the document and report on them, but rather to summarize the contents of the document - to hit on it's main points. This is documented in WP:PRIMARY - "Do not ... evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." That is what could be happening when people pick specific passages out of a primary source that were never documented in a secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It should further be noted that we hardly use the Massei report at all, and my attempts to clean up the section where the report is massively overused were, as I recall, reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your attempts to 'clean up', as you describe them, were highly selective. You should really get consensus from the group before making the often radical changes to the article which you appear to think you are entitled to make at the drop of a hat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BOLD. Do you insist on pre-clearing consensus from the group for all radical changes to the article? For instance, should this edit have gotten consensus before being made? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the policy. You can't blindside me by Wikilawyering any more. I warn you not to patronise me again by telling me to review any more Misplaced Pages policies. You're simply using them as a weapon to patronise your adversary. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The founding principle of Misplaced Pages is, basically, that you don't have to navigate complex bureaucracy to make changes. You make them. If they are validly disputed then it gets discussed. --Errant 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great Errant, except that that principle has not applied to this article in the recent past. However I'm not complaining. It seems to be moving in the right direction. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The material initially gave me pause for thought. I think the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE; an awful lot of detail was added from the single primary source - the idea is to write an overview. :) I felt the text was not particularly well written (although can can be fixed in the copyedit process, which I did start before the RV). And I also had a worry over the liberal accompaniment of Italian words to the text. I couldn't figure out what purpose that served (except in a couple of cases where quoting his words made sense). --Errant 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I've also just noticed that Guede stated he had met Kercher the previous night, on Halloween, and had arranged a "romantic" date with her the next day might be a close paraphrase of the source. If someone gets chance to fix that it would be great :) --Errant 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the quoted "romantic" statement, which makes this less close to the original in two ways (tone and vocabulary (and not having romantic in quotes)). The left over statement is so simple and general, I don't believe there is a copyright issue.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise this is nit-picky, but copyright like this is specialism... it is still very close (well, basically the same sentence :)). I'll have a go at rewording the intro to the paragraph later. Single sentences won't usually matter, but when we are attributing the source so directly it is best to err on the side of caution. --Errant 20:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think describing Guede's version of events is a case of WP:UNDUE details. Kercher's house keys & 300 euros were confirmed missing, the front door was noted as left open, her bedroom door was locked, other rooms had been entered, a window was broken, and she was found on the floor, disrobed on a single bed pillow (with blood handprint and shoe prints), and pools of blood nearby. Text related to those details should be added, so it is appropriate to note Guede claimed Kercher unlocked the front door with a key from her handbag (Guede stated the door was not wide-open at that time), and she did not say, "Wow, I've lost my key...could you break a window to let us unto the cottage?" ...plus Guede claimed Kercher discovered significant money missing from an open drawer (Italian: cassetto aperto), and they together searched the house, room-to-room. Here's a general rule of thumb: expect the size of this article to grow until all major aspects of the crime are described: the missing 300 euros (~$420), 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, Kercher's house keys, the phone calls which Kercher made before dying, the fingerprints and shoe prints recorded, the luminol patches, the CCTV video evidence, and the knife evidence. -Wikid77 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because I commented at the recent WQA report that arose out out of this article, user Hipocrite asked me at my talk page to comment on this section (permalink). As I said there, I don't have an intrinsic interest in this article, and I don't intend to participate in its development; certainly not to edit it. But I have spent roughly 90 minutes reviewing the edit in question, and the policies that apply to it. There has been considerable debate at RSN over the circumstances under which it might be permissible to use court transcripts, of course, and to what extent, and we have more than one policy that applies to this particular instance of the question. The one that seems to me to be most relevant to this instance is WP:BLPPRIMARY. I won't quote from that here; please look at it yourself. Although some might read that as a black-and-white, bright-line exclusion of the disputed material in this case, I don't see it that way, given that other sources have discussed this material. So in my opinion, like most of the cases that have been raised over the use of trial transcripts at RSN, this, too, comes down to a judgment call.

And it's a difficult judgment call, in my opinion. I have no objection to using the trial transcript to clarify and briefly expand statements that have already been discussed in secondary sources, but that use should be very limited, I think. Is this edit "limited", or "limited enough"? I think it is, just barely. I do object to some parts of the added material, though. For example, "Guede could not describe the knife or indicate length" cited to the transcript seems rather cherry-picked to me, in the sense that (to me) the statement implies he should have done, and to the extent that's true, it offers an editorial comment, however implicit. Also, "The man struggled and cut Guede, who fell to the floor, but picked up a chair" should not, in my opinion be reported as fact; it needs to be prefaced with "Guede said", or some such, I think. Also, the word "claimed" is used to describe Guede's statment, which should not be used; see WP:CLAIM. Similarly with "supposed date"; the phrase indicates disbelief. Instead of "In their supposed date, Guede said...", I'd prefer to see something like, "As Guede recounted the events of what he described as their date, Guede told the court ..." More neutral, less prejudicial, imo.

If I understand correctly, though, much of the dispute over this edit has to do with whether the statement in the article, "The court found that Guede's version of events did not match the forensic evidence" can be or is properly supported by the primary-source quotation,

Guede "confirmed to have touched more or less everywhere in the room, even with his hands stained with blood, without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed". –Micheli Judgment

I'd say it's justified in concept, but that the wording is too strong and too broad. Unless there's other supporting material that I'm unaware of (a possibility, of course, since I know almost nothing about the facts of this case) the summary statement, "did not match the forensic evidence" seems too much to say if it's referring to, and depends upon, only the pillow/footprint statement, above. I'd prefer to see something like, "In rendering its verdict, the court noted that Guede did not explain how his footprint came to be on a pillow under the corpse, observing that Guede had stated his recollection of the pillow as having been in place on the bed." Or something like that.

As I said on my talk page, I do not intend to be drawn into participating in the development of this article, so I probably won't be replying to any responses that are posted here to this commentary, or not at any length, anyway. I've provided this opinion primarily because Hipocrite requested it, and because I felt I sort of owed him the courtesy, since I'd been so critical of his behavior previously, at WQA. I doubt he'll be pleased with my opinion here, though, which I regret. I'll close by saying that this is just one editor's opinion, of course, and certainly isn't definitive. If participating editors want other opinions, those could certainly be reasonably requested at RSN. If you take it there, I'd just suggest that you all try hard not to continue to argue the case there, to give uninvolved reviewers the "room" to respond, and that you give greater weight to the opinions of reviewers who appear to have spent more some reasonable time examining the question, instead of just quoting a quick sentence or two from policy that touches this, and concluding that decides the matter. This is not a question that can be resolved that way, imo; it calls for careful analysis of all the policy issues that apply. In any case, please try to remember that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, as he sees it, and that opinions about so close a judgment call as this may certainly differ, legitimately, and in all good faith.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well put, I especially like your suggestion for the summation of the courts opinion on the footprints (any objections by editors to that being inserted?). I think that we can definitely add material from this report - however I think it needs to be done with care. For example He said he got fruit juice from the refrigerator (Italian: frigo), and then she walked back to her room to find a drawer open (Italian: cassetto aperto), and her money (denaro) was missing. He claimed they went, room to room, to search for other money or items taken, but saw no evidence of a break-in. strikes me as detail rising to the level of triviality. I am unconvinced that it is important to recite every single detail as described by Guede, only the particularly relevant things/broad overview (this is why secondary sources are useful FWIW, because they identify the relevant bits for us :)). He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra Didn't strike mas as neutral or off-hand. I'm struggling a bit (because the source does not translate properly ever time for me) to track down the specific part that supports this, but, I am concerned that this is intended to undermine his evidence due to the fact that a phone call is said to have been made elsewhere (the insinuation being he is lying). It would be nice to have the exact part of the source presented that this is taken from. The second sentence also concerned me, mostly because of the use of "Instead", which seems a bit of a WP:WEASEL word (following on from the previous sentence). All of this material can, and should, be dealt with. I just think this particular edit was not the best presentation of it. (Also: I reworded the problematic close-paraphrase & also re-added a small amount of detail about the times, which are important, from the primary source). --Errant 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of this article is not to try to defend the testimony of a man who was convicted 3 times of a murder, and there is no WP policy which states, "You cannot include testimony of a convicted man which might make him seem to have lied in court" (no WP policy supports that viewpoint). Please note that even policy WP:SYNTH requires a synthesis of text from 2 or more sources to imply a novel conclusion. It is not a novel conclusion that Guede was convicted 3 times of the murder, nor to conclude his testimony did not match the forensic evidence. The extent of details which I added from the court transcript was a microscopic summary of his testimony: he also stated that when he fled the scene, he left both Kercher's bedroom door open and the cottage door open as well; plus, he noted he spent Halloween with some Spanish friends and 2 women, at a residential party, and they went to the Domus nightclub later. Many of those people made statements for his trial. Also, when shown photos of Meredith Kercher partying, in costume, at various locations, Guede said he did not recognize any of those locations. There is an enormous amount of detail in the Micheli Judgment document, so the tiny portion I noted is only part of what could be included in the article, as related to the criminal charges which arose in his trial. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, even if an editor's religion demands avoiding the facts, WP does not "cherry-pick" which text to exclude from a conviction-summary so that a man convicted of a murder would seem less guilty or would seem to have always told the truth. It is not a novel conclusion that he might have committed the murder. -Wikid77 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of the relevance of NOTCENSORED or editor's religions, you lost me there, sorry. The content that was reverted had significant issues (FWIW I would have improved it rather than RV, but there you go), not least a non-neutral tone that strongly implied he had lied in his evidence. This is not a conclusion we can make (if someone else reliable does so, that is another matter) or adopt. The section did not successfully detach fact from analysis. As you say; there is microscopic detail in the trial transcript. We don't really need to deal with all of that. As another point, where testimony contradicts other evidence (or itself) we must have a reliable source that explains this to support the text. That can't be "side stepped" by listing his testimony in a way which situates it against text further up the article. The key idea here is of hand tone :) --Errant 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77, I don't know who or what you might be referring to with your comment about "an editor's religion", but please keep it civil. You know the drill: Comment on the content, not the contributor. There's been more than enough flaming and flame-bait around this article, already; no one needs any more, regardless of how frustrated they might feel.

More substantively, re "WP does not 'cherry-pick' which text to exclude..." you hit on exactly the problem with using trial transcripts at all: When someone picks, based on their own preference and judgment, which passages from a transcript to include and which to exclude, his editorial discretion will inevitably be open to charges of cherry picking. Some facts will be emphasized by the selection, and others suppressed. Thats why, to my understanding, primary sources should, at most, only be used to briefly expand on, or elucidate, statements already made in secondary sources. Whenever you go much beyond that, you start to act as a journalist rather than an encyclopedia writer, imo. Based on what you've presented in the foregoing (talk-page) comment, it does seem to be "the truth" that Guede's conviction was just. But you know very well that "the truth", for better or worse, isn't our stock in trade, here. That's certainly frustrating at times, but there are good reasons, too, that we're mostly limited by policy to summarizing what secondary sources have already reported. I'm sure you'll agree when you reflect for a moment on the alternative.

@Errant: I also had some reservations about, "He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra." If "he did not say" isn't an observation made by the principles (i.e. judge, lawyers, etc.) in the case that's taken directly from the transcript, but rather an observation made by an editor about it, I'd say it has to go. Also, I didn't see the point of the fruit juice thing, either. Whether to mention Guede's statement about money being missing at all, and his testimony that they searched for it is, imo, a tough judgment call. I'm inclined to recommend that it be left in, but I'd be happier about doing so if it were reported in secondary sources. Even if it's not, though, it seems to me to be a small-enough expansion on the narrative that does exist in secondary sources that I think it's permissible.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate my objection to "supposed date" and the ubiquitous use of "claim" or "claimed"; again, see WP:CLAIM for NPOV considerations that apply. Guede may be guilty as sin; based on the little I've read, it's my opinion that he probably is. But we still don't get to skew the language of our articles to say so. We still have to report the facts in an NPOV way, and can't use the "voice of Misplaced Pages" to cast doubt on (or lend credence to) anyone's statments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the "supposed date" problem when I fixed the close paraphrasing problem earlier. There is still a claim in there, I was a bit lazy so sort of constructed the new sentences around the witnesses testimony statement, and "claimed" was the natural word to use :) Absolutely no issues from my end on rewording that part. --Errant 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Errant, I missed that correction. Also, as a point of order, mostly directed to Wikid77: I'd suggest that you'd probably all get along a little better here if everyone would stick to normal WP:INDENTATION threading protocol, and try to refrain, in the future, from using flush-left posts or, especially, from calling out their posts with bullet-points/asterisks. This is a small point, but the usual protocol does tend to help the discussion proceed in a more cooperative way, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I fixed the claim problem (seeing as I caused this latest one :)) now too. Not really all that happy with the sentence but it is a case of "shored up" for the moment ;) --Errant 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding Guede's version of events

I am responding, here, to several issues noted, anywhere and everywhere, in the above topic:
• When I use a left-side bullet-point/asterisk, I am responding to several issues.
• When I indent, it is a response to the prior post.
• The word "claimed" is coming from the Italian language (perhaps Misplaced Pages can get the word removed from Italian dictionaries?). The court document said Guede (quote) "claimed" (unquote).
• I like the word "claimed" and object to Misplaced Pages's insinuation that "claimed" means "lied desperately to hide his guilt" so I just do not believe most readers in the world will read "claimed" and go "Aha! Liar, Liar, Liar" which (to me) means that WP:CLAIM is a violation of WP:NOR redefining the word "claimed" to have an exclusive new meaning (compared to the witness "fabricated" or "imagined").
• The reference to the fruit juice places Guede in the kitchen at that time.
• I can pinpoint the source where Guede states he calmed her to forget the money and became intimate.
• I noted he never mentioned Kercher using her phones.
• He was charged with murder, and notes her as alive c.21:00 but later stabbed by another.
• He was charged with assault, but stated they became intimate/touched.
• He was charged with theft, but stated her drawer was open and money gone, and saw her house key from her handbag (details related to his criminal charges).
• The house door enters the kitchen, and Kercher's room is at the end of that hall.
• Guede stated a direct course of events: they entered, he took fruit juice from the kitchen, and they went down the hall to her room where a drawer was open; hence, it's not like they came inside, and he cooked a meal, then she went outside to pick flowers, left him inside 25 minutes, then returned to find someone opened a money drawer in her room.
• By insisting on removing any minor "9-word phrase" about fruit juice (etc.), it is an attempt to censor the suspect's stated course of events, and I just do not understand what policy says to remove 9 words about entering a house.
• About the tone of the post, I have stated Guede's version of events, and I cannot help if he seems to be lying. They noted that he could not describe the knife or indicate length (indicare lunghezza), but stated he was cut on the hand by it (hey, Judge Micheli noted these issues in his reasoning about guilt, so go figure: a guy is fighting to avoid a man with a knife but does not know what the knife looked like or any length). Please understand, that the Micheli Judgment went further, by noting that Guede's alleged trip to the far-opposite bathroom, just when the "knifer" arrived, seemed to them to be "too convenient" (in timing of events) to be reality. I did not include that level of judgment, and the whole story might still seem fishy and negative to any readers, but Misplaced Pages is not about trying to un-fishy-fy a guy's testimony.
• I do not see a reason to justify removing the entire 4kb text of Guede's version of events.
• I could note 23 issues to change in the text, but that is no reason to prevent adding it.
• The problem to avoid is "paralysis of analysis" in waiting to pre-debate and decide every possible analyzed flaw, before adding text to the article.
As a result, I plan to restore the whole text, but avoid the word "claimed" for now, while also adding a secondary source specifically about Guede's version of events ("Meredith whispered killer's name, suspect says", Telegraph, 24 Nov. 2007). Then, we can modify parts of the text or discuss, later, how to "perfect each and every word" or other issues. -Wikid77 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking the time to discuss specifics :)

• The reference to the fruit juice places Guede in the kitchen at that time.; why is this important? Do we have a source that identifies this as an important thing to note?
• I noted he never mentioned Kercher using her phones.; yes.... but you haven't explained why. Does the source (I am struggling to find it) specifically say that he never mentioned this detail. Or does it just not mention it? Do you see why that is an important difference?
• hence, it's not like they came inside, and he cooked a meal, then she went outside to pick flowers, left him inside 25 minutes, then returned to find someone opened a money drawer in her room.; is this a view expressed in a RS? or your own view of what is important to establish? If the latter,
• I cannot help if he seems to be lying.; I disagree, I explained above how the formulation of the sentences implied heavily he was lying. NPOV is not just about stating every view, but stating it in a neutral off-hand way. We are not quoting Guede, so there is no reason for the wording to imply him being a liar. That is an analysis we must leave to a RS, if one exists.
• Please understand, that the Micheli Judgment went further, by noting that Guede's alleged trip to the far-opposite bathroom, just when the "knifer" arrived, seemed to them to be "too convenient" (in timing of events) to be reality.; why? This is the sort of analysis material we should be considering including!
• The problem to avoid is "paralysis of analysis" in waiting to pre-debate and decide every possible analyzed flaw, before adding text to the article.; I generally agree. But in this specific case I strongly recommend you let people re-write portions and add it back as we discuss each section. My main concern with what you wrote is that it wasn't very good text. --Errant 10:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Guede has stated his version of events. His account is easier to describe if treated as a story-line: he waited, she unlocked with key from handbag; it was c.21:00; he asked and took juice from frig; she went back to her room, and they discovered the missing money; they toured the cottage and found no breakin and no other theft; they became intimate/touched; he got sick and crossed to the large bathroom; heard knock+scream & went to bedroom; knifer guy with no glasses over body on floor; they fight and Guede's hand cut by knife he could not describe; he leaves Kercher fully dressed on floor & white pillow on bed. He says Amanda Knox was not in the cottage that night. He runs home (using back streets), changes clothes, and goes dancing. The next he pays cash for a train ticket from Italy-to-Switzerland-to-Germany and leaves. He has no idea about Kercher's 2 missing phones. The jury decides guilty. If not ordered as a story-line, it becomes: he fled and went dancing; MK was bleeding on floor; he searched for money/valuables in all rooms; she unlocked the front door; it began at 21:00; MK said her money was gone; Guede could not describe the knife; he changed clothes; Knox was not there; he heard a knock+screams; they became intimate; he ran home; knifer guy with no glasses over body on floor; white pillow on bed; they fight and Guede's hand cut by knife; Guede pays cash for a train ticket; Guede got sick and crossed to the large bathroom. So, it is much clearer when re-ordered by time of events. -Wikid77 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Kercher Statement

Currently, the media section has the following:

The Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair, but have generally avoided much media attention. On 2 December 2010, Kercher's journalist father, John, writing in the Daily Mail, condemned Knox's elevation to "celebrity" status as "utterly despicable," and that the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname, "trivialises the awfulness of her offence." He maintained that to the Kercher family, Knox is, "unequivocally culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been ­convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."

I would like to delete the reference that the family has avoided media attention. It seems out of date based on all the interviews that the family has conducted. They seem to have increased media presence after the convictions for Knox and Sollecito were announced, so I wouldn't mind the article saying that (assuming a RS can be found).

Furthermore, these seems to have more in common with the "support" section than a media coverage one. I propose that we create a support for Kercher section with this passage in it. We should also include any notable support groups or other notable statement by family and/or supporters.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable to say that John Kercher has avoided media attention. On the contrary, he has used his Fleet Street contacts with extraordinary success--most naotable in the Sunday Times where he was allowed about 2,400 words. This in itself is extraordinary. It is true that Arline Kercher has avoided the limelight.PietroLegno (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He also resurrected the ridiculed claim that Meredith was killed as part of some Satanic ritual. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Support for Kercher" seems an odd choice of subtitle. No amount of 'support' is going to change Meredith Kercher's current state one little bit. "Kercher" is not trying these cases, expresses no opinion, and takes no position on them - the Italian authorities are. pablo 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have any suggestions for how to name the section? "Kercher Family Views"?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite hit the nail on the head with "Reaction of the Kercher family".LedRush (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would avoid all direct quotes from family members, due to the potential of emotional phrases, such as Kercher's father saying that Knox "has been ­convicted...in the most hideous and bloody way" and I suppose any quotes which claim Knox was railroaded by corrupt Italian officials, who beat and starved her, insensitive to her grieving while she wept over her dear friend Meredith's death, should be avoided. However, I think a lot should be included that the Italian authorities lied to tell her she was HIV-positive (was not) when they knew she was HIV-negative because a lot of women think of HIV as a death sentence or ban on pregnancy, even though 1/3 of children born to HIV+ mothers turn HIV-negative. Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+ (while they knew she was not). So, if the police misled about HIV (source: "Two Faces of Amanda Knox", Guardian.co.uk, 2009-12-04), then what else did they lie about. It is important to defend the conclusion that the police lied, so that notion would not be considered as a "novel conclusion" (although many readers know police lies are not a novelty). For example, in the Micheli Judgment, it is noted that Guede acknowledged having made false statements after going to Germany (Judgement 28.10.2008 filed 2009-01-26, link, Italian: tanto da aver reso false generalità - "so that he had given false information"), so noting that text will support the conclusion that "Guede has lied about the details of the Kercher murder" (by Guede's own admission). Stick to noting the documented events, rather than quoting someone said Knox's conviction was "hideous". -Wikid77 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. Dare false generalità only means to give a false name and or address (when asked by authorities). Salvio 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Whilst I largely agree that family commentary should be kept to a minimum (and certainly avoid the most emotional and inflammatory quotes from them) I have to question whether you are being ironic about this bit: Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+. Are you being serious about that? Because it would be a pure WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT issue to try and so so :S In general it is highly recommended to avoid following through with your own speculation on topics. --Errant 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is not mere speculation, it is a typical reaction for women. The policy for WP:SYNTH only applies if a conclusion is not stated in any of the sources, and certainly a source about HIV+ women is likely to mention how women would be upset about not having children. Meanwhile, the Guardian source ("Two Faces of Amanda Knox", Guardian.co.uk, 2009-12-04), already states that Amanda was upset thinking she could not have children:

"She had written about her 7 lovers in her prison diary only after... told she was HIV positive ­following a prison blood test. "I was crying, thinking I cannot have children," said of the 2 weeks before she was told she was negative."

Knox's extensive suffering because of the police is well-documented. In general, almost any details can be stated in a crime article: a suspect's version of crime-related events is not WP:UNDUE details, but rather, essential for WP:NPOV (how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of viewpoints?). Also, it is rare for WP:SYNTH to restrict crime-article text: neither guilt nor innocence would be a "novel conclusion" to a reader, and the concept of a witness lying on the stand is hardly a novelty. WP does not ban a suspect's testimony out of fear how readers might imagine a suspect is lying about the events. A suspect's viewpoint should be included. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as soon as you then add a sentence that notes "that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant" (with sources) that is synthesis of sources. to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+; and that would be the WP:POINT violation. --Errant 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP policies allow details in crime articles

There seems to be extensive misunderstanding that this crime article cannot contain any details, because some people think everything published in reliable sources is considered a violation of WP policies. That is simply not true. In fact, it would be a severe violation of WP:NPOV neutrality to (continually) remove or ban a suspect's version of events as being WP:UNDUE details (Think: how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of major viewpoints?). When a person has gone to trial for a crime, and their documented viewpoint is excluded from a article, then I would consider that a violation of WP:NPOV in excluding their viewpoint while only considering the police or prosecution version of events. If people are charged with theft, and they state the theft occurred before they arrived at the scene, then that must be included in the article. In reality, there are few cases where details should be removed from a crime article:

• If a suspect names someone else as committing the crime, then consider removing that as unfounded rumor.
• If a news report quotes local people as claiming someone committed a crime, then that should be removed as rumor.
• If a non-official person is named in the text, then that name can be shortened to last initial, or removed.
• If a person testifies, under oath, that they saw a person involved, then that should be allowed.

Consequently, to provide the wide, NPOV-neutral coverage, then all major viewpoints must be presented in the article, and that could generate a huge article, to present a balanced coverage of all major views. In fact, if a crime article seems brief, or merely moderate, in size, then it probably is a policy vio against WP:NPOV balance. Therefore, expect many people to complain that a crime article is biased, when it leaves out so many details that all major sides of an issue are not fairly presented. Plus, when it comes to an article becoming huge, then remember WP:NOTPAPER allows articles to be quite large. I hope this clarifies why crime articles should be expected to become huge. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem that exists is that we definitely don't want to recite their exact testimony in great detail, we are a summary. So we deal in the generalities of their evidence, and then pick important specifics as identified by reliable secondary sources. We aren't telling a story, we are recording historical events in reasonable detail. --Errant 10:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there has been a misconception, earlier, when some people used the word "transcript" about the Micheli Judgment document (from 2009-01-26), as if being a record which quotes all statements made by Guede and witnesses. It is not a court transcript, but rather a summary of Guede's 1st trial (1 of 5), as published 90 days later. In fact, the source used in MoMK is not really a true "primary source" but rather a summary of the real 106-page Micheli Judgment, condensed by omitting many forensic details as well as page numbers. In this case, the Penale.it website has published a summary of the true Micheli Judgment by repeating most of the details, as being significant, but omitting numerous room measurements (and such) which were contained in the true primary source. For that reason, it would be possible to draw a "scale map" of the cottage (from measurements), but only some furniture measurements are in the Penale.it version. So, I agree with the concept of using a summary of each suspect's version of events as noted in secondary sources, and that is, indeed, what the above text embodies. -Wikid77 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopaedia - not a dedicated crime encyclopaedia. The point should not be inflate the article through the inclusion of one piece of information after another until the page comes across more as a repository for trivia and minutiae than an accessible source of information. If the article is so turgid as to make it unreadable, Misplaced Pages rather fails in its goal to serve as a tool for education. SuperMarioMan 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize the size of Misplaced Pages might seem troublesome, and I do not think Misplaced Pages can be called a "general encyclopedia" but rather an "immense encyclopedia" of more than 21 million articles in 250(?) languages, intended for the general public who read any of numerous languages. It's not "your grandfather's 1911 Britannica any more". I continually remind people, that in the 1960s, Encyclopaedia Britannica did not allow an article on Babe Ruth, or Clark Gable or even Elizabeth Taylor (the highest paid actress at that time), but upon her death, Misplaced Pages's pageviews for her article entered record-breaking levels: 2 million pageviews in 1 day, and 4.5 million per month, for an article formerly not allowed in Britannica. Today, Misplaced Pages does not ban articles in that manner, and WP:Notability of a subject is determined by extensive coverage in reliable sources, where the extend of an article is determined by policies of NPOV-neutrality, verifiability (to all WP:RS sources), and known research on details. Hence, when crimes are notable (due to extensive coverage), then Misplaced Pages includes a vast "crime encyclopedia" treating each case in a balanced, verifiable matter, which includes material to cover all the major (felony) crimes associated with a particular event. However, I support your concerns about "turgid" text, so I advise to use subarticles and inter-wikilinked sections, plus photos and crime scene concept-diagrams, charts, and lists (etc.). Also, this article is a special case:  a crime article that is among the "Top 1000 most-read articles of 2011" (by pageviews). Plus, it is a rare case: college students, with 2 men and 1 woman are accused of assaulting and murdering another student. -Wikid77 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTPAPER and avoidance of what could be described as "topic elitism" should both be borne in mind. It's just that, given the appearance of the article approximately 12 months ago, when it was at 150kB or more, I'm generally wary of attempts at sizeable expansion. In its previous incarnation, the Murder of Meredith Kercher article presented so many assertions and counter-assertions as to render the text practically impossible for a non-expert to follow - hence the drawn-out rewrite and simplification of content. Just out of interest, when you allude to sub-articles, what kinds of titles do you have in mind? The two proposals that are often raised at this talk page (and have been debated frequently in its various archives) relate to a separate biography for Knox and a trial article covering her an Sollecito (both of which have been the subject of WP:AfD discussions and still - currently - exist as redirects, as information at the head of the talk page indicates). The case for a Knox article may well be stronger at this point than in the past - I'm no longer certain that I oppose the concept, in principle, since WP:BLP1E concerns would seem to hold less merit now - but the potential for acceptance from the wider Misplaced Pages community remains difficult to judge. Opinion would appear to be sharply divided. SuperMarioMan 01:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

People want to know why the case is notable, and what has been controversial. When all is added back to the article: the Satanism concept, the alleged gioco erotico, the Myspace photos, the claims of bleaching, the conviction of Mignini, then the crime details become overwhelmed by the controversy. Now imagine if retesting the bra clasp (2nd sample) matches Guede not RS. Plus imagine if Knox/Sollecito get acquitted (due to whatever motivations in Italy to free them), then all those issues must be explained (per NPOV balance about BLP of 2 students), and so the result is a bigger distraction from describing the crime & how it happened. Thus, split "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" to move that away and focus on the murder of MK. Since Knox is already in 2 articles, adding a 3rd for the Trials, makes the separate Knox biopage an automatic choice (linked to 3 articles). The title of the article promises to describe a murder event, not a shaggy dog story of how wild prosecutions distracted people from solving the crime, from getting the bank video recording before it was over-written (which showed people leaving the house), and from moving furniture to other rooms before all evidence was collected from the scene (etc.). Focus on the evidence of the murder, versions of events from suspects, and phone calls made. -Wikid77 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

<<<the potential for acceptance from the wider Misplaced Pages community remains difficult to judge. Opinion would appear to be sharply divided.>>> ...One of the best examples of WP:WEASEL I have ever seen. Well done, SuperMarioman. Is there any way to nominate this for the Misplaced Pages hall of fame? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, when the Amanda Knox article, as it existed previously, was discussed at AfD in June 2010, users put forward many arguments both for and against keeping it. However, the resulting merge/redirect back to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article was perhaps inevitable at that time, since that old version of the page presented POV problems besides raising questions of WP:BLP1E. If the article is resurrected and reads as neutral in tone, then the weakening of the case for WP:BLP1E would leave arguments for another merge/redirect much thinner on the ground. Recent talk page discussion on the prospect of a separate Knox biography has indicated that opinion is still split on this subject - I am simply making some observations, speculating a little and asking Wikid77 a question. Your concerns regarding WP:WEASEL would hold more water if the Manual of Style applied to talk page comments as well as article content. I grow rather tired of all this sarcasm and snideness - do you have something to offer in response to my comment above that will permit this conversation to move forward amicably? Regards, SuperMarioMan 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned to Wikid77 that, ultimately, this might spin out into more articles. I think there will eventually be scope to do so (although, not a biography of Knox :S) just to keep it sensible. The two trials (an their appeals) would seem to be the sensible divider. But that is a long long way down the road, when appeals are done and if the article gets too big in this guise. --Errant 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and the Idaho Innocence Project

Recently, Examiner.com has reported the Idaho Innocence Project as checking the Amanda Knox case (video URL: www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/amanda-knox-case-being-examined-by-idaho-innocence-project-video Exam-IIProject-video). Hence, increased participation on the MoMK article, at this time, should not be seen as nefarious "off-site canvassing" but rather a natural consequence of a recent news story about the events. -Wikid77 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail, again.

In the above section titled "Primary sourced description of trial," it seemed pretty clear to me that there was not support for the majority of this older edit. Specifically, the use of italian phrases oddly in the text, discussing such trivialities as getting juice from a fridge, various discussions of drawers being open, and whatever. I don't know why an alternative proposal was not made, or an explanation of why the various details were important. I assumed that the issue was just dropped.

However, the edit was made - again, with even more extranious detail and random italian quotes - . This is problematic. I do not think that adding this level of detail, or random italian words throught the section is appropriate. Please explain what details need to be added to the article, with reliable secondary sources. Do not continue to just reinsert the detail without discussing. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit more closely, I have even more substantial problems with it - specifically, it includes the text "Guede also said that Amanda Knox was not in the cottage on the night," sourced to . That article states "Guede said that Knox was not in the house on the night." However, Guede's story, according to had "two shadowy figures he would later identify as Knox and Sollecito." I am unclear as to why his statements are selectively presented to absolve Knox in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to this edit by Wikid77 is best described as "disappointed". I can find no explanation for it other than an unhealthy dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not addressing concerns raised on the talk page, wait a few days, then re-insert pretty much the same material... I would also point out that Wikid77 restored the close paraphrase that we discussed and I fixed and all of the weasel words and POV ("alleged date", "however" etc.) that we constructively worked out. --Errant 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Italy articles
• Low-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles